Sentences with phrase «if coal emissions»

The second figure shows that if coal emissions were thus phased out between 2010 and 2030, and if emissions from unconventional fossil fuels such as tar shale were minimized, atmospheric CO2 would peak at 400 - 425 ppm and then slowly decline.

Not exact matches

The really compelling argument for disallowing the coal supply chain through Fraser Surrey Docks is that it effectively undoes that achievement in emissions reduction if the same hydrocarbons end up being burned and vented into the atmosphere in China, where if anything environmental protections are more lax.

Clark said a ban will help develop the province's liquefied natural gas industry, arguing if China shifted from coal to LNG it would have «a massive impact» on greenhouse gas emissions.

(If anything, I'd argue windmills improve human health by replacing polluting gas and coal - fired power plants with emissions - free technology.)

It will be nearly impossible for the state to reach its goal of reducing emissions 40 percent by 2030 if there are still coal - burning power plants operating, she said.

Phasing out coal is one of the first steps the Cuomo administration must make if it hopes to meet its goal of drastically reducing air emissions by about 40 percent in the next decade, said Lisa Dix, senior New York representative for Sierra Club.

If China's use of renewable and nuclear energy grows at a plausible rate, and the country captures some of its emissions from coal - burning power stations and keeps making improvements in energy efficiency, by 2050 its total emissions could end up 4 per cent lower than today, says Zhou.

Adding a price on carbon emissions at even a «modest» level of $ 25 per ton would make new nuclear energy competitive with coal and natural gas even if the risk premium remains, the MIT study concludes.

In the short term, new gas - fired power stations can help cut emissions, but only if they replace existing coal - fired power stations rather than nuclear plants or renewable energy sources.

The analysis by Yang and Jackson finds that if the gas produced by the new plants is used to generate electricity, the total lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions would be 36 percent to 82 percent higher than pulverized coal - fired power.

Ironically, if the world burns significantly less coal, that would lessen CO2 emissions but also reduce aerosols in the atmosphere that block the sun (such as sulfate particulates), so we would have to limit CO2 to below roughly 405 ppm.

Some want to emulate the success of the United States in bringing down energy prices via shale gas - a fossil fuel that can help cut greenhouse emissions if it replaces coal but at the same time can divert investments from cleaner energy.

However, Kavanagh pointed out that electrolysis is only as clean as the grid that feeds it, so if the energy comes from a coal - fired power plant, there may not be any carbon emissions savings.

And coal disappears from the map if you add the environmental and public health costs associated with various energy sources (the third map), including a $ 62 per metric ton price on carbon dioxide emissions.

«If all the coal - burning power plants that are scheduled to be built over the next 25 years are built, the lifetime carbon dioxide emissions from those power plants will equal all the emissions from coal burning in all of human history to date,» says John Holdren, a professor of environmental policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

If, as Perry has claimed, climate change is a baseless hoax, it makes no sense that he should advocate for a technology explicitly designed to capture and sequester carbon emissions from coal - fired power plants for the sole purpose of averting the warming effect of those emissions.

Unfortunately, jet fuel derived from coal results in even more CO2 emissions, which makes it no alternative at all if the goal is to combat climate change.

The coal industry, and its backers in Congress, have said that if EPA deems CCS the best system of emissions reduction, it will force the industry to use a method that has not been proved on a commercial scale.

For Wigley, the proper course of action is not yet clear, since he can not determine if the change in the emissions profile between coal and natural gas is worth the expenditure.

Sub-Saharan Africa, who in the worst - case over the next 40 years would be 4 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, you can give them a pass and say, «Hey, any way that you guys can get energy, if it's natural gas, coal, gasoline, you know, whatever you want.

«However, if electricity is generated from coal to charge an electric vehicle it produces 139g CO2 - e / km well - to - wheel emissions, compared with only 9g CO2 - e / km well - to - wheel emissions with electricity from renewable energy sources.»

By burying 60 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions deep underground, the 275 - megawatt FutureGen plant, to be built in Mattoon, Illinois, seeks to show that coal can be, if not exactly clean, then at least cleaner.

«If we continue with business - as - usual emissions, extreme seasons will inevitably become the norm within decades and Australia will be the canary in the coal mine that will experience this change first,» said Dr Lewis.

Global energy - related emissions could peak by 2020 if energy efficiency is improved; the construction of inefficient coal plants is banned; investment in renewables is increased to $ 400 billion in 2030 from $ 270 billion in 2014; methane emissions are cut in oil and gas production and fossil fuel subsidies are phased out by 2030.

The jist of this is that we must NOT suddenly switch off carbon / sulphur producing industries over the planet but instead we must first dramatically reduce CO2 emissions from every conceivable source, then gradually tackle coal / fossil fuel sources to smoothly remove the soot from the air to prevent a sudden leap in average global temps which if it is indeed 2.75 C as the UNEP predicts will permanently destroy the climates ability to regulate itself and lead to catastrophic changes on the land and sea.

However, for specific numbers: US Coal mine emissions were on the order of 4 Tg / year in 1990, which is about 0.2 trillion cubic feet, if I've done my conversions right (1 Tg methane = 52 Billion cubic feet).

We've reduced those emissions by about 40 % since then despite growth in the coal sector, which, if we assume that reduction is all due to CMM programs, implies about 0.1 trillion cubic feet of methane, so not your «trillions» but not insignificant.

By comparison, scenarios for fossil fuel emissions for the 21st century range from about 600 billion tons (if we can keep total global emissions at current levels) to over 2500 billion tons if the world increases its reliance on combustion of coal as economic growth and population increase dramatically.

It's this: if the second-most populous nation of the world, projected to become the most populous, plans it's modernization on coal, global warming from those emissions could destabilize the whole world.

Coal - to - liquid fuels with carbon capture and storage could replace about 15 — 20 % of current fuel consumption in the transportation sector (2 — 3 million barrels per day; the lower estimate holds if coal is also used to produce coal - and - biomass - to - liquid fuels) and would have lifecycle CO2 emissions similar to petroleum - based fuCoal - to - liquid fuels with carbon capture and storage could replace about 15 — 20 % of current fuel consumption in the transportation sector (2 — 3 million barrels per day; the lower estimate holds if coal is also used to produce coal - and - biomass - to - liquid fuels) and would have lifecycle CO2 emissions similar to petroleum - based fucoal is also used to produce coal - and - biomass - to - liquid fuels) and would have lifecycle CO2 emissions similar to petroleum - based fucoal - and - biomass - to - liquid fuels) and would have lifecycle CO2 emissions similar to petroleum - based fuels.

If the world were to cut 45 percent of methane emissions by 2025, as studies suggest, it would have the same short - term climate benefit as closing one - third of the world's coal plants.

If coal burning produces particulates, especially those sources with unregulated emissions, particulates, sulfer dioxide, etc. may impact climate changes.

Hogbom had, at the time, started to consider carbon dioxide emissions from factories (simple enough if you know, for example, how many tons of coal each factory burns a year).

If we continue increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations with emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and gas, the Earth will continue to get hotter.

If human - caused climate change is to be slowed enough to avert the worst consequences of global warming, carbon dioxide emissions from coal - fired power plants and other pollutants will have to be captured and injected deep into the ground to prevent them from being released into the atmosphere.

If I understand the above calculation correctly, it would seem that, in the electricity sector, we could mostly concentrate on meeting additional demand with efficiency and carbon neutral generation (and avoid some of the fights associated with replacing existing coal generation plants); but if we need to reduce emissions by 80 % by 2050, then I am not sure whether this makes sensIf I understand the above calculation correctly, it would seem that, in the electricity sector, we could mostly concentrate on meeting additional demand with efficiency and carbon neutral generation (and avoid some of the fights associated with replacing existing coal generation plants); but if we need to reduce emissions by 80 % by 2050, then I am not sure whether this makes sensif we need to reduce emissions by 80 % by 2050, then I am not sure whether this makes sense.

He said it was particularly important, if that goal is to be reached, for the federal government to work with utilities to curb emissions from power plants (half the country's electricity still comes from coal burning.).

If that electricity savings were used to close coal power plants, that would have saved 1.6 giga tonnes of CO2 emissions (out of 7.1 giga tonnes total greenhouse gas emissions).

, makes it crystal clear, in quantified terms, that the emissions of carbon dioxide from burning coal are a major part of the problem and need to be addressed if we are to make the necessary changes to address global warming.

The effort has to switch to not burning coal and unconventional oils if we are to limit CO2 emissions.

The key factors determining carbon emissions for corn - based ethanol are (1) whether coal or natural gas is used to power the ethanol plant, (2) whether distillers grains are dried or sold wet, and (3) whether expansion of corn acreage comes mainly from reduced acreage of lower - value crops or if idled land is brought into production.

Researchers at Stanford University who closely track China's power sector, coal use, and carbon dioxide emissions have done an initial rough projection and foresee China possibly emitting somewhere between 1.9 and 2.6 billion tons less carbon dioxide from 2008 to 2010 than it would have under «business as usual» if current bearish trends for the global economy hold up.

They should include people in gas country, where federal studies hopefully will soon clarify ways to responsibly expand extraction of a vital fuel (if you care even remotely about moving away from oil or limiting emissions from coal - burning power plants).

Anti-regulatory blogs and commentators and the McCain - Palin campaign made a push to publicize a 10 - month - old comment by Senator Barack Obama about the high cost of coal burning if and when a hard cap is set for carbon dioxide emissions.

If the U.S. electric grid operated as it did in the 2000s with coal as king then annual national emissions would be 475 million metric tons of CO2 higher.

Third, new technologies, such as underground coal gasification and especially carbon capture and storage, can — if given substantial financial support — reduce emissions substantially from coal use in power plants and industrial facilities.

For example, if we stop building new coal - fired power plants without CCS, and if we quickly develop CCS technology, we can help the entire world avoid generating huge amounts of emissions from coal.

Of course, the situation would be very different if coal - burning utilities all had cleansers or other means to strip carbon dioxide from their emissions.

A single, large coal plant, if built with the best - available technology, can reduce emissions by the annual equivalent of taking a million cars off the road compared to the subcritical coal - plant technology still prevalent in most countries.

A new buzz phrase in the push to limit greenhouse gas emissions is «unburnable carbon» — an effort to define and then wall off the portion of the world's still - vast reserves of coal, oil or natural gas that might, if combusted, cause unacceptably costly or dangerous climate change.